Dear all The next session of The Politics of Economics <http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-politics-of-economics> will be on Thursday Jan 24th at 17.15 pm (note this is a Thursday not our normal Tuesday slot). We will be joined by Cathrine Holst (Oslo) who will talk to us on Asymmetry, Disagreement and Biases: Epistemic Worries about Expertise and How to Address them (see abstract at the end of this email), Frederico Brandmayr (Cambridge) will offer comments. The session will take place in SG1, Alison Richard building, Sidgwick site. There will be a paper for this session pre-circulated to our mailing list <https://lists.cam.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/ucam-politics-of-economics>. If you are not on the mailing list please send an email to jw...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:jw...@cam.ac.uk> for a copy. As for the rest of the coming term, we are hosting the following sessions: - Tuesday Feb 5th, 12:00 - 14:00: Economics and/or Wellbeing, Will Davies (Goldsmiths) Anna Alexandrova (Cambridge). Seminar Room SG1 NB Different time - Tuesday Feb 19th, 17:15 - 18:45: Measurement of the Sustainable Development Goals, Seminar Room SG1, Mary Morgan (LSE) - Tuesday Mar 5th, 17:15 - 18:45: Private Equity and the Balance of Twinkie the Kid, Seminar Room SG1, Daniel Souleles (Copenhagen Business School)
You can subscribe to our mailing list here <https://lists.cam.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/ucam-politics-of-economics>, and find us on twitter @poleconCRASSH <https://twitter.com/poleconCRASSH>. Best wishes, Jack Wright, Raffaele Danna, Jostein Hauge, and Alice Pearson Asymmetry, Disagreement and Biases: Epistemic Worries about Expertise and How to Address them Cathrine Holst (Oslo) This paper contributes to an ongoing exchange in political theory on the normative legitimacy of expert bodies. It focuses on epistemic worries about the expertization of politics, and uses the Nordic system of advisory commissions as an empirical case. Epistemic concerns are often underplayed by those who defend an increasing role of experts in policy-making, while those who have epistemic worries often tend overstate them and debunk expertise. We present ten epistemic worries, of which some are of an epistemological nature, while others are related to failures and biases. These worries no doubt point to real problems which in some way have to be handled through the design of expert bodies and institutions of science advice. We introduce three groups of mechanisms that are likely to remedy the problems of expertise and discuss what they imply for the design of a system of public advisory commissions _____________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CamPhilEvents mailing list, or change your membership options, please visit the list information page: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEvents List archive: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEventsArchive Please note that CamPhilEvents doesn't accept email attachments. See the list information page for further details and suggested alternatives.
